Jack White Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 I did the graphic very hurriedly, and now I note that I was about and eighth-inch off on the right side of the red box, which would further exaggerate the aspect ratio. It should be by the second column, not the first as I drew it. This has NO EFFECT however on the premise of the study, and is easily correctible. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted July 8, 2007 Author Share Posted July 8, 2007 Chris...there seems to be something phony about that recreation photo besidesthe car not being the same angle. I have not done a comparison, but if that is an UNCROPPED photo, the aspect ratio and the field of view both look dissimilar to the view from the Model 80A. How about showing us a side-by-side comparison, as well as a side-by-side comparison of the two cameras. Thanks. Jack Jack, Here they are. The Moorman photo as stated earlier was reduced to 29.2% x30% for more precise registration. Thanks to Marcel for the Moorman Polaroid photo and Robin for the earlier photo from the program. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 I did the graphic very hurriedly, and now I note that I was about and eighth-inchoff on the right side of the red box, which would further exaggerate the aspect ratio. It should be by the second column, not the first as I drew it. This has NO EFFECT however on the premise of the study, and is easily correctible. Jack The problem is your premise is incorrect. Here's the data: Moorman Model 80 camera. Lens 100mm, actual image area of the film 2 1/8 x 2 7/8 Discovery camera, Model 195. Len 114mm, actual inage area 2 7/8 x 3 3/4 Your study proves notihng other than the cameras, lenses and film format were different. Research is your friend... Wanna try again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 (edited) Photo below from Jack......... Statement from Mary Moorman...... Yesterday while reviewing some transcribed old notes taken many years ago at the National Archives, David Lifton came across a long forgotten information of the mother lode variety. He was transcribing by hand, listening with earphones to audio tapes made on the afternoon of 11-22-63, from KRLD Radio tape reels. The reel was an interview by Jay Hogan of Mary Moorman and Jean Hill at 3:30 pm...on KRLD RADIO excerpts, Tape 5B and 6A at NARA. I am excerpting from the lengthy transcript several relevant parts of the interviews. Decide for yourself the importance of this first day evidence: HOGAN: Q: Hello, Mrs. Moorman? A: Yes. Q You took the picture just after the shooting, or just before? A: Evidently, just immediately, as the. . . Cause he was, he was looking, you know, whenever I got the camera focused and then I snapped it in my picture, he slumped over. (DELETED FOR BREVITY) Q: About how close were you? (DELETED FOR BREVITY) A: 10 or fifteen foot, I, no more . . . Because I fall behind my camera. (DELETED FOR BREVITY) Q: Were you up on that grassy bank there? A: We stepped out in the street. We were right at the car. (DELETED FOR BREVITY) Q: How many shots did you hear? You say "shots rang out". A: Oh, oh, I don't know. I think three or four is what I, I uh, that I heard. Q: Uh huh. A: (continuing) that I'm sure of. Now, I don't know, there might have been more. It just took seconds for me to realize what was happening. Q: Yeah, uh, what as your first thought? A: That those ARE shots. I mean, he had been HIT. And that they're liable to hit me, cause I'm right at the car. so I decided the place for me is to get on the ground (laughs) Q: So huh, how did the president respond to this shot. I mean, did he just slump suddenly? A: He grabbed his chest, and of course, Mrs. Kennedy jumped up immediately, and fell over him; and she said: "My God, he's been shot." Q: Did you notice any other reactions... (DELETED FOR BREVITY) A: Uh, they hesitated just for a moment [referring, I believe, to the car itself, rather than to the behavior of any particular individual--dsl] cause I think they were like I was, you know--'Was that a shot," or was itj ust a backfire, or just what? And then, course, he clutched himself and they immediately sped up, real fast, you know, like--to get OUT of there. And, uh, the police, there were several motorcycles around him; and, uh, they stopped, and uh--one or two must of went with him, And one ran up the hill, and a friend that was with me ran up the hill across the street from where the shots came from. (DELETED FOR BREVITY) Q: It (shots) seemed fairly close by? A: Yes, uh huh. Q And form what direction did they seem to be? A: Oh, Lord? North Just back there (at--laughs) Q: Just just right at you? A: Yes, sir. (DELETED FOR BREVITY) A: The sound popped, well it just sounded like, well, you know, there might have been a firecracker right there in that car. Q: And in your picture, uh, you took this picture just BEFORE the shot? (DELETED FOR BREVITY) A: Evidenty, at the minute ( means "instant" that he, that it hit him because,uh, we was we was looking, at me, or I mean, he was looking, you know at the people when my picture came out. They just slumped over, so I must have got it. (DELETED FOR BREVITY) A: Yes, uh huh. You could see he's clutched, he's bent over, and she's... and she hadn't even gotten up in my picture, and she DID get up, STOOD UP, in the car. (DELETED FOR BREVITY) Q: Uh huh. And you and your friend Miss Hill, uh, were together there at the scene. Was anybody else with you? A No, uh uh. Q: OK, well we sure thank you. FROM HERE ON OUT, the interview continues with Jean Hill This was posted here on the EF by Jack White from David Lifton Feb.07... ******************************* I found this partial copy of an interview of Mary Moorman, in a search a couple of years back.... Mary stated she WAS in the street again, when she took her polaroid....in 1997...... While being interviewed by KRLD ....The interview was originally, and kindly provided by Debra Conway..... Moorman: " UH, just immediately before the presidential car came into view, we were, you know, there was just tremendous excitement. And my friend who was with me ( Jean Hill ) we were right ready to take the picture. And she's not timid. She, as the car approached us, she did hollar for the president . " Mr.President, look this way ! AND I'D STEPPED OUT OFF THE CURB INTO THE STREET TO TAKE THE PICTURE. AND SNAPPED IT IMMEDIATELY .And that evidently was the first shot .You know I could hear the sound.And. Jones: "Now, when you heard the sound, did you immediately think 'rifle shot'..?" Moorman: "Oh no. A firecracker, maybe. There was another one just immediately following which I still thought was a firecracker. And then I stepped back up on to the grassy area. I guess just, people were falling around us, you know. Knowing something was wrong . I cetainly didn't know what was wrong. " B......... Edited July 8, 2007 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 Photo below from Jack.........Statement from Mary Moorman...... Yesterday while reviewing some transcribed old notes taken many years ago at the National Archives, David Lifton came across a long forgotten information of the mother lode variety. He was transcribing by hand, listening with earphones to audio tapes made on the afternoon of 11-22-63, from KRLD Radio tape reels. The reel was an interview by Jay Hogan of Mary Moorman and Jean Hill at 3:30 pm...on KRLD RADIO excerpts, Tape 5B and 6A at NARA. I am excerpting from the lengthy transcript several relevant parts of the interviews. Decide for yourself the importance of this first day evidence: HOGAN: Q: Hello, Mrs. Moorman? A: Yes. Q You took the picture just after the shooting, or just before? A: Evidently, just immediately, as the. . . Cause he was, he was looking, you know, whenever I got the camera focused and then I snapped it in my picture, he slumped over. (DELETED FOR BREVITY) Q: About how close were you? (DELETED FOR BREVITY) A: 10 or fifteen foot, I, no more . . . Because I fall behind my camera. (DELETED FOR BREVITY) Q: Were you up on that grassy bank there? A: We stepped out in the street. We were right at the car. (DELETED FOR BREVITY) Q: How many shots did you hear? You say "shots rang out". A: Oh, oh, I don't know. I think three or four is what I, I uh, that I heard. Q: Uh huh. A: (continuing) that I'm sure of. Now, I don't know, there might have been more. It just took seconds for me to realize what was happening. Q: Yeah, uh, what as your first thought? A: That those ARE shots. I mean, he had been HIT. And that they're liable to hit me, cause I'm right at the car, so I decided the place for me is to get on the ground (laughs) Q: So huh, how did the president respond to this shot. I mean, did he just slump suddenly? A: He grabbed his chest, and of course, Mrs. Kennedy jumped up immediately, and fell over him; and she said: "My God, he's been shot." Q: Did you notice any other reactions... (DELETED FOR BREVITY) A: Uh, they hesitated just for a moment [referring, I believe, to the car itself, rather than to the behavior of any particular individual--dsl] cause I think they were like I was, you know--'Was that a shot," or was itj ust a backfire, or just what? And then, course, he clutched himself and they immediately sped up, real fast, you know, like--to get OUT of there. And, uh, the police, there were several motorcycles around him; and, uh, they stopped, and uh--one or two must of went with him, And one ran up the hill, and a friend that was with me ran up the hill across the street from where the shots came from. (DELETED FOR BREVITY) Q: It (shots) seemed fairly close by? A: Yes, uh huh. Q And form what direction did they seem to be? A: Oh, Lord? North. Just back there (at--laughs) Q: Just just right at you? A: Yes, sir. (DELETED FOR BREVITY) A: The sound popped, well it just sounded like, well, you know, there might have been a firecracker right there in that car. Q: And in your picture, uh, you uh took this picture just BEFORE the shot? (DELETED FOR BREVITY) A: Evidently, at the minute (means "instant") that he, that it hit him because, uh, we was we was looking, at me, or I mean, he was looking, you know, at the people when my picture came out. They just slumped over, so I must have got it. (DELETED FOR BREVITY) A: Yes, uh huh. You could see he's clutched, he's bent over, and she's... and she hadn't even gotten up in my picture, and she DID get up, STOOD UP, in the car. (DELETED FOR BREVITY) Q: Uh huh. And you and your friend Miss Hill, uh, were together there at the scene. Was anybody else with you? A No, uh uh. Q: OK, well we sure thank you. FROM HERE ON OUT, the interview continues with Jean Hill This was posted here on the EF by Jack White from David Lifton Feb.07... ******************************* I found this partial copy of an interview of Mary Moorman, in a search a couple of years back.... Mary stated she WAS in the street again, when she took her polaroid....in 1997...... While being interviewed by KRLD ....The interview was originally, and kindly provided by Debra Conway..... Moorman: " UH, just immediately before the presidential car came into view, we were, you know, there was just tremendous excitement. And my friend who was with me ( Jean Hill ) we were right ready to take the picture. And she's not timid. She, as the car approached us, she did hollar for the president . " Mr.President, look this way ! AND I'D STEPPED OUT OFF THE CURB INTO THE STREET TO TAKE THE PICTURE. AND SNAPPED IT IMMEDIATELY .And that evidently was the first shot .You know I could hear the sound.And. Jones: "Now, when you heard the sound, did you immediately think 'rifle shot'..?" Moorman: "Oh no. A firecracker, maybe. There was another one just immediately following which I still thought was a firecracker. And then I stepped back up on to the grassy area. I guess just, people were falling around us, you know. Knowing something was wrong . I cetainly didn't know what was wrong. " B......... Really??? Please explain how short Mary, standing off the curb and in the guttter has her lens OVER the top of the windshield of the closest motorcycle, which IIRC was 54 inches tall?????? Wanna try again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 Thanks, Bernice, for posting the new photo comparison. Thanks also for reposting the Lifton TRANSCRIPT OF WHAT MARY SAID ON 11-22! Regarding the new recreation photo... 1. it is clearly taken from a farther distance than the Moorman. or 2. was taken with a wide angle lens. I doubt that the camera used had a wide angle lens, THEREFORE the camera was FARTHER AWAY THAN MARY WAS. Is there any documentation showing EXACTLY WHERE THE CAMERA WAS? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 Thanks, Bernice, for posting the new photo comparison.Thanks also for reposting the Lifton TRANSCRIPT OF WHAT MARY SAID ON 11-22! Regarding the new recreation photo... 1. it is clearly taken from a farther distance than the Moorman. or 2. was taken with a wide angle lens. I doubt that the camera used had a wide angle lens, THEREFORE the camera was FARTHER AWAY THAN MARY WAS. Is there any documentation showing EXACTLY WHERE THE CAMERA WAS? Jack Once again the facts... Moorman Model 80 camera, normal lens for the film format = 90mm. Actual lens on the camera, 100mm Discovery Model 195 camera, normal lens for the film format = 120mm. Actual lens on the camera, 114mm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Davidson Posted July 8, 2007 Author Share Posted July 8, 2007 Thanks, Bernice, for posting the new photo comparison.Thanks also for reposting the Lifton TRANSCRIPT OF WHAT MARY SAID ON 11-22! Regarding the new recreation photo... 1. it is clearly taken from a farther distance than the Moorman. or 2. was taken with a wide angle lens. I doubt that the camera used had a wide angle lens, THEREFORE the camera was FARTHER AWAY THAN MARY WAS. Is there any documentation showing EXACTLY WHERE THE CAMERA WAS? Jack Best footage I have. It appears he took it right behind/over the tripod which is just upon the grass. chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 Quote Craig Lamson: "Really??? Please explain how short Mary, standing off the curb and in the guttter has her lens OVER the top of the windshield of the closest motorcycle, which IIRC was 54 inches tall?????? Wanna try again?"" You figure it out, your the one objecting......To Mary's information. If you do not believe the witnesses who were there, and their almost immediate interviews, while you and the rest of us were not... ....That, is entirely up to you.. B.. ********************** Chris: This photo below is from Jack....... B....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 Since the Polaroids are BELLOWS cameras, focal length from lens to film plane is somewhat different than other cameras, and harder to comprehend. QUOTE: Once again the facts... Moorman Model 80 camera, normal lens for the film format = 90mm. Actual lens on the camera, 100mm Discovery Model 195 camera, normal lens for the film format = 120mm. Actual lens on the camera, 114mm UNQUOTE Correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm sure you will... if the Model 80 EFFECTIVE focal length is 90 mm (lens to focal plane) and the Model 195 EFFECTIVE focal length is 120 mm (lens to focal plane)... wouldn't the Model 85 have a WIDER FIELD OF VIEW than the Model 195? If so, explain why the Model 85 has a NARROWER FIELD OF VIEW than the Model 195. Ordinarilly, a longer focal length means greater magnification, not less. Thanks. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 Quote Craig Lamson: "Really???Please explain how short Mary, standing off the curb and in the guttter has her lens OVER the top of the windshield of the closest motorcycle, which IIRC was 54 inches tall?????? Wanna try again?"" You figure it out, your the one objecting......To Mary's information. If you do not believe the witnesses who were there, and their almost immediate interviews, while you and the rest of us were not... ....That, is entirely up to you.. B.. ********************** Chris: This photo below is from Jack....... B....... Thanks again, Bernice. Lamson has never been to Dealey Plaza. He was recruited by Tink Thompson to join his gang after Tink observed Lamson's attacks on me regarding Apollo on the DellaRosa forum. Lamson knows NOTHING, NOTHING about the JFK case. Both Lamson and Thompson were thrown off of Rich's forum for nonsense like we see here. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 (edited) Thanks again, Bernice. Lamson has never been to Dealey Plaza. He was recruitedby Tink Thompson to join his gang after Tink observed Lamson's attacks on me regarding Apollo on the DellaRosa forum. Lamson knows NOTHING, NOTHING about the JFK case. Both Lamson and Thompson were thrown off of Rich's forum for nonsense like we see here. Jack Jack, The things Craig is talking about are correct whether he has been to Dealey Plaza or not. Things that show you in error that does not take someone going to the plaza to see it .... 1) Moorman tells Mark Oakes that your claiming she was in the street for that picture is silly 2) Jean Hill says she was out of the street BEFORE the first shot was fired 3) The curb drops more than 8" and the slope of the hill increases the drop to well over a foot and a half. Craig was right for mentioning this because the shoes of Moorman and Hill are seen in the Muchmore film, thus they cannot be in the street 4) Craig is also right that Moorman's camera is elevated higher than the tops of the cycles windshields, which could not be the case had Moorman of been standing in the street unless Mary had held the camera well over her head to take her photo 5) Your alleged position for Moorman in the street is seen as being in error when the gap between the window of the colonnade and the corner of the pedestal vary between your pic and Mary's. (see below) Your attempt to divert attention away from your error by stating that Craig attacked you is as erroneous as your 'Mooorman in the street' claim. What Craig, Thompson, myself, and others attacked was your poorly researched claims - not you personally. Bill Miller Edited July 8, 2007 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 (edited) Since the Polaroids are BELLOWS cameras, focal length from lens to film planeis somewhat different than other cameras, and harder to comprehend. QUOTE: Once again the facts... Moorman Model 80 camera, normal lens for the film format = 90mm. Actual lens on the camera, 100mm Discovery Model 195 camera, normal lens for the film format = 120mm. Actual lens on the camera, 114mm UNQUOTE Correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm sure you will... if the Model 80 EFFECTIVE focal length is 90 mm (lens to focal plane) and the Model 195 EFFECTIVE focal length is 120 mm (lens to focal plane)... wouldn't the Model 85 have a WIDER FIELD OF VIEW than the Model 195? If so, explain why the Model 85 has a NARROWER FIELD OF VIEW than the Model 195. Ordinarilly, a longer focal length means greater magnification, not less. Thanks. Jack Actually the focal length of a complex is not lens the lens to film plane distance. It is actually the principal point of the lens to film plane distance. That distance is a lens property and it is created by the lens designers as needed to fit the application. For example an 80mm lens on a Hasselbad needs a long lens rear elemsnt to film plane distance because of the large 2.5 inch or so square mirror inside of the body. An 80 mm lens on a Canon 35 mm body has a shorter lens rear element to film plane distance because the mirror is smaller. You can use the Hasselblad lens on the Canon body IF you include the required adapter that mates the different models AND provides the required LONG film to lens rear element distance. The fact that a camera is a "bellows camera is not really a factor, and in the case of the Model 80 the bellows are not used in focusing like in a view camera. The model 80 focus is done at the lens. The term "normal lens" is a calculation of the length of the diagonal of the image area. For the model 80 that number is 90mm thus the 100mm lens that is supplied with the camera is slightly longer than "normal" For the model 195 that number is 120 and the lens 114mm that is supplied with the the camera is slight wider than normal. Finally the angle of view for a given lens is not totally dependant on the focal length. It is also format dependant. For example: 58mm SUPER-ANGULON XL 5.6 lens...angle of view 110 degrees 4x5 format 60mm Hasselblad lens...angle of view 50 degrees 2 1/4 format Canon 60mm lens...angle of view 25 degrees 35mm format All of these lenses have a 60 mm (or close) length yet they all have very different FOV's and very different lens to film plane distances. Edited July 8, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 Quote Craig Lamson: "Really???Please explain how short Mary, standing off the curb and in the guttter has her lens OVER the top of the windshield of the closest motorcycle, which IIRC was 54 inches tall?????? Wanna try again?"" You figure it out, your the one objecting......To Mary's information. If you do not believe the witnesses who were there, and their almost immediate interviews, while you and the rest of us were not... ....That, is entirely up to you.. B.. ********************** Chris: This photo below is from Jack....... B....... Thanks again, Bernice. Lamson has never been to Dealey Plaza. He was recruited by Tink Thompson to join his gang after Tink observed Lamson's attacks on me regarding Apollo on the DellaRosa forum. Lamson knows NOTHING, NOTHING about the JFK case. Both Lamson and Thompson were thrown off of Rich's forum for nonsense like we see here. Jack . Good one Jack. You launch a person attack to complain about so called personal attacks on you. Priceless. You have been to the plaza many times but that has not helped you at all in the understanding of the geometry present in the Moorman. You are still wrong, and in fact you continue to publish misinformation about this in spite of the massive empirical evidence that shows you are wrong. So tell me why is being in the plaza important again? I was never "recruited' by anyone. My knowlege of photography and of the Moorman are what is required in this study, not "knowing nothing, nothing about the JFK case" Heck you know quite a bit about the JFK case but that knowlege serves you poorly because you have been proven to be totally wrong about the Moorman. So tell me why having a broad knowlege of the JFK case is improtant again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 8, 2007 Share Posted July 8, 2007 (edited) Quote Craig Lamson: "Really???Please explain how short Mary, standing off the curb and in the guttter has her lens OVER the top of the windshield of the closest motorcycle, which IIRC was 54 inches tall?????? Wanna try again?"" You figure it out, your the one objecting......To Mary's information. If you do not believe the witnesses who were there, and their almost immediate interviews, while you and the rest of us were not... ....That, is entirely up to you.. B.. ********************** Chris: This photo below is from Jack....... B....... Either Mary was wrong in her recollection... or The Moorman, Altens, Muchmore and Zapruder films were altered to move her OUT of the street. I have it figured out...do you? Edited July 8, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now